Homicide

Question 0

R v Cheshire

Answer 0

But for test: acceleration of death must be significant, i.e. more than minimal
Even cases of serious medical negligence may not be enough to break the chain of causation

Question 1

R v Pagett

Answer 1

the defendant’s act needs not be the sole cause of death. Significant contribution suffices

Question 2

R v Jordan

Answer 2

‘palpably’ wrong medical treatment held to break the chain of causation

Question 3

R v Blaue

Answer 3

you take your victim as you find it (victim refusing blood transfusion case)

Question 4

R v Lamb

Answer 4

In constructive manslaughter, unlawful act must be a crime requiring proof of intention or recklessness

Question 5

R v Ball

Answer 5

In constructive manslaughter, dangerous means that the act carries the risk of some harm to some person. The test is entirely objective

Question 6

R Adomako

Answer 6

Manslaughter by gross negligence requires (1) a duty of care (2) breach of that duty (3) a risk that the defendant’s conduct could cause death (4) evidence that the breach of duty caused the death (5) jury’s conclusion that the defendant can be labelled grossly negligent

Question 7

R v Khan

Answer 7

Manslaughter by gross negligence can occur as a result of a failure to act. Requirement is a duty to act

Question 8

R v ICR Haulage

Answer 8

A company can incur criminal liability, subject to following limitations (a) certain offences by their very nature cannot be committed by a company (b) a company cannot be convicted where the only sentence is physical, i.e. a term of imprisonment

Question 9

Tesco Supermarket v Nattrass

Answer 9

If the prosecution could prove that senior executives of the company had the necessary mens rea required for an offence, the company itself could be prosecuted and convicted of the crime